Grog wrote:If you are depressed and full of debt and you just want to end your life, well in this case the state doesn't legalize anyone in helping you (because they are purely egoistical reasons), but since when does that stop someone to commit suicide?

I see. I wouldn't make this distinction. If someone wants out, that's their choice. Anything else implies people are slaves, and children don't exactly consent to becoming people in the first place. Anyway, I think the problem would be solved if the best meds for suicide were free for purchase by private individuals (without a prescription). In this case, the state wouldn't be condoning anything, and it would have no political fallout. People could just make their own choice in private. Not all suicide methods are reliable.

The part about debt gave me some pause, suicide is like a unilateral default. But then again, that's the natural risk of lending people money.

I think people are grossly misrepresenting Swiss law here, possibly due to mistranslations?

The requirement of altruism is not a requirement of the person seeking euthanasia. It's a requirement on the person assisting the patient (ie: the doctor supplying the medication and facilities). By Swiss law, you are allowed to assist someone in ending their life, as long as your motives are not personal gain. So assisting your rich mother-in-law is out. So are commercial suicide-clinics, I suppose.

On the patient, the requirement is merely that the wish to die is not the result of a curable psychological problem, but the result of an informed, carefully considered and lasting decision. How exactly that is tested I don't know, I'm not an expert on Swiss practises

It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Diadem wrote:On the patient, the requirement is merely that the wish to die is not the result of a curable psychological problem, but the result of an informed, carefully considered and lasting decision.

Angua wrote:Suicidally depressed would lead to mental illness classification.

This point--something about it itched at my intuition. After reflection, I've become ambivalent about it.

The counterpoint: an emotional response is not in itself worthy of an "illness" classification--that seems like it would be a rather peculiar usage of the word. If the response is not wholly unwarranted given the stimuli, then where is the basis for calling someone "ill"?

It seems like a proper classification would involve a balancing act of the biological and the environmental factors. If there were no environmental factors and primarily biological factors, then the suicidal depression would be quite peculiar and seem wholly unwarranted. A mild amount of biological factors might constitute a predisposition. And minimal biological factors along with major environmental factors would indicate no illness at all (e.g. a hypothetical person robbed of everything dear and subjected to interminable torment). (Though this is only off the top of my head, and I'm sure proper classification would involve more caveats and nuances still).

I bring this up because I see a constraint on the right to die that could employ this logical chain: "suicidal depression is mental illness, thus any responses should be aimed at treatment rather than opening access to death". Due to the distinctions drawn in the previous paragraph, I reject the initial clause (i.e. the blanket claim that suicidal depression is worthy of a mental illness classification).

In serious discussion, I usually strive to post with clarity, thoroughness, and precision so that others will not misunderstand; I strive for dispassion and an open mind, the better to avoid error.

depression is not the only psychological disorder that may drive people to suicide. Perhaps the most common one, but certainly not the only one. So focussing on exactly what depression means is, I think, not the most productive approach.

It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

Greyarcher wrote:I bring this up because I see a constraint on the right to die that could employ this logical chain: "suicidal depression is mental illness, thus any responses should be aimed at treatment rather than opening access to death". Due to the distinctions drawn in the previous paragraph, I reject the initial clause (i.e. the blanket claim that suicidal depression is worthy of a mental illness classification).

I agree, especially considering that suicidal planning itself can be used as a sufficient diagnostic criterion for depression. And even if other symptoms present themselves, such as sleep disorders or low mood or drive, this should not be sufficient ground to override the person's self-determination. Only inhibitions of cognitive functionality which make it impossible for the person to understand correctly what suicide is and what consequences it has, should be considered for mental illness status in this process.

The way I see it, you have the right to suicide, you just don't have the right to have someone help you, or to help someone else commit it. but in all reality, there is nothing stopping you from offing yourself and it's actually not that hard to pull off.

the first problem is that suicide is in many cases the result of a mental disorder. we don't honor contracts that are entered into under such a handicap, so why would we allow someone to decide to terminate their life? furthermore, there are prescription drugs on the market that advertise the risk of "suicidal thoughts" as a side effect. are you going to grant the right to assisted suicide to someone who only wants it because they're reacting negatively to a drug?

as far as being able to assist in suicide, it seems possible that I could take advantage of my senile parents in such a way that I get them to agree to killing themselves (with my assistance) to hasten the distribution of my inheritance. should someone have the right to die just because they've been influenced by someone with less than altruistic motives?

I think that there are so many cases where mistakes can be made and lives could be erroneously snuffed out that it should be left the way it is: if you really want to kill yourself, then go ahead. just don't expect anyone to help you do it, and don't plan on helping anyone else do the same.

as far as if goes for the infirm or the terminally ill, that's a smaller issue. but that has nothing to do with smoking or engaging in dare devilish behavior.

--------------------------------------------

I also agree that suicidal tendencies are more often than not the result of a mental disorder, just by definition. it can't be considered natural to take one's own life, as this would go against every single logical evolutionary model of human behavior. chances are that if you're trying to take your own life, there is something disordered about your mental process because the NATURAL behavior of an organism is generally self preservation.

I can see exceptions in cases where taking your own life would be for some greater good, but in the majority of cases it is simply a disorder.

Angua wrote:You're still missing the classification of 'depression' required in there.

Hm, I thought I mentioned I was using it in the general and casual sense of the word (i.e. a negative mood referent). That is to say, I am using it as a layman would, because that is what best fits what I mean. Perhaps you're being distracted by my word choice, since the word is also used in related technical classifications?

ztmario wrote:the first problem is that suicide is in many cases the result of a mental disorder. we don't honor contracts that are entered into under such a handicap, so why would we allow someone to decide to terminate their life?

Actually, that line of thought and the problems with it were just discussed in the last two pages. So no need to ask the question rhetorically.

In serious discussion, I usually strive to post with clarity, thoroughness, and precision so that others will not misunderstand; I strive for dispassion and an open mind, the better to avoid error.

TranquilFury wrote:If you have the strength to kill yourself, no one can stop you. THAT is what makes this a right, rather than a privilege.

Now that is a terrible argument. Not only does it justify anything a 'strong' enough person can do unopposed, it is also not actually true - though it would require a number of what are currently considered ethical violations you could, in fact, be stopped from killing yourself.

Might makes right, always has, always will. The only rights you have are the ones you have the will to assert and the power to enforce, this is true for any person or organization, governments included. Unless you're completely paralyzed or restrained, you have power over your own life, there's not much anyone can do about you waiting till you're alone, then shooting yourself in the brain, cutting your neck open, or jumping off a cliff.

TranquilFury wrote:Might makes right, always has, always will. The only rights you have are the ones you have the will to assert and the power to enforce, this is true for any person or organization, governments included. Unless you're completely paralyzed or restrained, you have power over your own life, there's not much anyone can do about you waiting till you're alone, then shooting yourself in the brain, cutting your neck open, or jumping off a cliff.

Well, except that none of those things are guaranteed to be fatal. Botched suicides are surprisingly common, often because people don't have a good understanding of how much, in fact, the human body can survive (especially with medical treatment).

TranquilFury wrote:Might makes right, always has, always will. The only rights you have are the ones you have the will to assert and the power to enforce, this is true for any person or organization, governments included. Unless you're completely paralyzed or restrained, you have power over your own life, there's not much anyone can do about you waiting till you're alone, then shooting yourself in the brain, cutting your neck open, or jumping off a cliff.

Well, except that none of those things are guaranteed to be fatal. Botched suicides are surprisingly common, often because people don't have a good understanding of how much, in fact, the human body can survive (especially with medical treatment).

Foolproof? no.There will be attention seekers and incompetents that mimic the popular(and mostly ineffective) methods of attempting suicide (wrist cutting/pill popping especially) instead of say, stealing from the mafia, skydiving sans parachute, or jumping in front of a truck on the highway some night.

TranquilFury wrote:stealing from the mafia, skydiving sans parachute, or jumping in front of a truck on the highway some night.

I don't mean disrespect, but this nonsense right here is one of the reasons I regret they give the right to vote to just anybody.

The right not to be prevented from suicide should be the most basic of all rights, together with the right not to be killed. I would love to live in a society where I can cooperate with others to safeguard these rights for each other, and it has been surprising and frustrating for me to realize how little readiness there is to do this. This is not a lack of altruism. These are your rights too. To negate them is blatant idiocy. I wish my conspecifics were less idiotic morons, and more cooperative egoists.

Cent wrote:The right not to be prevented from suicide should be the most basic of all rights, together with the right not to be killed. I would love to live in a society where I can cooperate with others to safeguard these rights for each other, and it has been surprising and frustrating for me to realize how little readiness there is to do this.

The reason suicide is prohibited and considered immoral is simply the desire of those in power to rule over as large a group as possible (if you kill yourself you can't be made to pay taxes any more, etc.) It's the same reason abortion and homosexuality are widely considered immoral, although both of those have had their immorality recently come into question since our rulers themselves often want to engage in them. When you argue in favor of legalized suicide, though, you've got thousands of years of uninterrupted propaganda opposing you, so it's one hell of an uphill battle even if you're right (being right is a pretty small factor in being able to influence the beliefs of the masses).

Goplat, your post made me think of The Church of Euthanasia. They have some really interesting things to say, I think, along with some very strange shit. The four "pillars" of their church are abortion, suicide, sodomy, and cannibalism.

TranquilFury wrote:stealing from the mafia, skydiving sans parachute, or jumping in front of a truck on the highway some night.

I don't mean disrespect, but this nonsense right here is one of the reasons I regret they give the right to vote to just anybody.

The right not to be prevented from suicide should be the most basic of all rights, together with the right not to be killed. I would love to live in a society where I can cooperate with others to safeguard these rights for each other, and it has been surprising and frustrating for me to realize how little readiness there is to do this. This is not a lack of altruism. These are your rights too. To negate them is blatant idiocy. I wish my conspecifics were less idiotic morons, and more cooperative egoists.

There will not be cooperation between two people or organizations without an outside party more threatening than each other. There are outliers that try to go against this instinct, but they are at a competitive disadvantage because of it. It's willfully ignorant to assume every other person has the same goals that you do, this is the biggest problem with the golden rule. No, different people have different goals, and because of this they have different rights as well. As I've said before, you have the right to only those liberties which you have the will to assert and the power to enforce. If anyone is able to stop you it becomes a privilege, and if you don't care enough to fight for a liberty at all, it might as well not exist. Rights aren't things you are granted by someone else, nor are they inherent in being a human or person, they are the things you are willing and able to fight for. As for altruism, I am selfish. Virtually every person is, though most will try to convince themselves otherwise. Yes, I will help other people achieve their goals if there is no conflict with my own goals, but I am not willing to act to my own detriment for the benefit of another, nor do I expect others to. Certainly social capital is something with utility that must be weighed in a decision, but if I don't place my own goals first, I might as well be a slave. It is certainly beneficial in some circumstances to cooperate, but only if your interests are in conflict with those of someone/something with more power than you.

Im not saying it should or shouldn't be a right to die, im saying it IS a right for those that enforce it.

TranquilFury wrote:It's willfully ignorant to assume every other person has the same goals that you do, this is the biggest problem with the golden rule.

There is no reason to assume this. Self-determination is a meta-goal useful for all other goals, and compatible with the self-determination of others, unless your goals include owning slaves.

Rights aren't things you are granted by someone else, nor are they inherent in being a human or person, they are the things you are willing and able to fight for.

Rights are, in fact, things your are granted by someone else. The very concept of rights only makes sense in the context of human cooperative agreements. If every person needed the physical power to enforce his/her own rights at all times, the concept would lose its meaning. To have a right means I can call onto others in an agreement, such as a legal system, to aid me in a certain way; most usually by punishing aggressors and defectors who have harmed me in specific, well-defined ways.

@Goplat: Full agreement. I recommend you use at least your vote to punish the parasites that try to subdue your self-determination.

TranquilFury wrote:It's willfully ignorant to assume every other person has the same goals that you do, this is the biggest problem with the golden rule.

There is no reason to assume this. Self-determination is a meta-goal useful for all other goals, and compatible with the self-determination of others, unless your goals include owning slaves.

Rights aren't things you are granted by someone else, nor are they inherent in being a human or person, they are the things you are willing and able to fight for.

Rights are, in fact, things your are granted by someone else. The very concept of rights only makes sense in the context of human cooperative agreements. If every person needed the physical power to enforce his/her own rights at all times, the concept would lose its meaning. To have a right means I can call onto others in an agreement, such as a legal system, to aid me in a certain way; most usually by punishing aggressors and defectors who have harmed me in specific, well-defined ways.

@Goplat: Full agreement. I recommend you use at least your vote to punish the parasites that try to subdue your self-determination.

That right there is wishful thinking, Yes, you can delegate your power to an organization that shares SOME of your goals, for safety, and while that organization might have the right to secure some liberties for it's constituents, you are left with the privileges that come with being a member of that group, at the expense of every liberty that group is unwilling to defend. If a group shares ALL of your goals, either you were indoctrinated to share it's goals, and are ignorant of your own slavery, or you have your very own personality cult, congrats.

TranquilFury wrote:That right there is wishful thinking, Yes, you can delegate your power to an organization that shares SOME of your goals, for safety, and while that organization might have the right to secure some liberties for it's constituents, you are left with the privileges that come with being a member of that group, at the expense of every liberty that group is unwilling to defend. If a group shares ALL of your goals, either you were indoctrinated to share it's goals, and are ignorant of your own slavery, or you have your very own personality cult, congrats.

I wasn't talking about delegating power; I was talking about legal rights. Without legal rights, people can shoot you in the face for fun, and there's nothing you can do about it. Without the legal right to die, you can be forced to be alive in a state in which you don't want to be alive. You seem to be under the illusion that the alternative is personal superpowers, while in reality, it's personal powerlessness.

TranquilFury wrote:That right there is wishful thinking, Yes, you can delegate your power to an organization that shares SOME of your goals, for safety, and while that organization might have the right to secure some liberties for it's constituents, you are left with the privileges that come with being a member of that group, at the expense of every liberty that group is unwilling to defend. If a group shares ALL of your goals, either you were indoctrinated to share it's goals, and are ignorant of your own slavery, or you have your very own personality cult, congrats.

I wasn't talking about delegating power; I was talking about legal rights. Without legal rights, people can shoot you in the face for fun, and there's nothing you can do about it. Without the legal right to die, you can be forced to be alive in a state in which you don't want to be alive. You seem to be under the illusion that the alternative is personal superpowers, while in reality, it's personal powerlessness.

You misunderstand, the things that prevent people from shooting you in the face for fun are risk, and that you probably aren't a significant threat to their goals. If someone WANTED to kill you, there's not much you can do about it through a legal construct, paranoid personal security is the only way. Even if the person that shoots you gets caught, you're still dead. With suicide, on the other hand, you have the stronger position, as someone else has to be paranoid about keeping you alive, and all you need are a few minutes of privacy. As for "legal rights," those are privileges granted by whichever person or organization has the greatest capacity for violence(by definition, the Government). Everyone has some power, the forms of it vary, but it's ultimately backed by violence, be it your personal ability to fight, the willingness of others to fight on your behalf, or the unwillingness of your opponents to exert force exceeding your tolerance of pain.

TranquilFury wrote:If someone WANTED to kill you, there's not much you can do about it through a legal construct

Yes yes, this is all true, but the point is that the illegality of murder induces high additional costs on them if they do it, which practically deters them most of the time.

Everyone has some power, the forms of it vary, but it's ultimately backed by violence.

Yes, or to be selectively productive, or to tarnish reputation, or to vote for someone else... You misrepresent this issue as if it always were about physical violence. You can do massive harm to someone just by deleting a number from a set of computer databases. Or by convincing a good number of people not to vote for a given political candidate.

With suicide, on the other hand, you have the stronger position, as someone else has to be paranoid about keeping you alive, and all you need are a few minutes of privacy.

Except that's not the truth, because as it has already been pointed out many many times, survival rates are high and if you're disabled or otherwise incapacitated, a few minutes of privacy are not "all you need".

Let's not lose sight of one simple truth here: If you want to be the one who decides under what circumstances you continue to live and under which you don't, in your actual future, you'd better contribute to the political conditions that place this legal decision into your own hands and not into the hands of others. That's really all I care about here.

TranquilFury wrote:If someone WANTED to kill you, there's not much you can do about it through a legal construct

Yes yes, this is all true, but the point is that the illegality of murder induces high additional costs on them if they do it, which practically deters them most of the time.

Everyone has some power, the forms of it vary, but it's ultimately backed by violence.

Yes, or to be selectively productive, or to tarnish reputation, or to vote for someone else... You misrepresent this issue as if it always were about physical violence. You can do massive harm to someone just by deleting a number from a set of computer databases. Or by convincing a good number of people not to vote for a given political candidate.

Name one government who's laws and borders aren't backed by violence.

With suicide, on the other hand, you have the stronger position, as someone else has to be paranoid about keeping you alive, and all you need are a few minutes of privacy.

Except that's not the truth, because as it has already been pointed out many many times, survival rates are high and if you're disabled or otherwise incapacitated, a few minutes of privacy are not "all you need".

Let's not lose sight of one simple truth here: If you want to be the one who decides under what circumstances you continue to live and under which you don't, in your actual future, you'd better contribute to the political conditions that place this legal decision into your own hands and not into the hands of others. That's really all I care about here.

Survival rates aren't high because of intervention, they're high because instinct gives humans very strong inhibitions to suicide, so unless they're resolute and competent, people do a halfassed job of it and/or change their minds partway through. How many people survive shooting themselves in the head? I'd wager not many.

And to clarify, if i did decide to kill myself, a few minutes alone and one functioning limb are really all i'd need to accomplish that.